January 26, 2021
In January 2020, I was part of a mass lay-off, 100+ employees were let go. On that day, the company's HR told me that as part of my separation package, they had issued me, and other employees who were also getting let go, stock options based on an expedited vesting schedule. According to the contract they provided me on my final day, they stated the number of options I was granted and told me I would be able to view my options to make a decision on whether or not to exercise if I signed their separation agreement within a week. My login info to access the option would be provided 2 weeks after that date. I signed. However, when I tried to access my options two weeks later, the company would not provide me the info to view the options. Only after following up for 11 months, sending 30+ emails, often with no response, or a response saying that \"they were working on it and would get back to me soon,\" they finally verbally told me in December 2020 that they hadn't actually issued me the options on the back-end, even though the contract had stated so. When I asked them to correct their mistake and grant me my options as promised, they referenced SEC Rule 701 prevents them from honoring the terms of the agreement and issuing me the options in December, since I'm no longer an employee. My separation agreement states that I have up to 2 years, after my last date of employment, to exercise my options.
I'd like to submit a comment to advocate for the amendment of Rule 701 to allow companies to issue options to former employees up to 5 years after their last date of employment. This would allow companies to quickly rectify the issue if they've made mistakes in the issuing process during a lay-off, and give former employees a path forward. On another note, it would also offer more protection to former employees by preventing a company from misleading employees during what is already, a really difficult time. Changing the window from 12 months to 5 years would allow more protection. As the amendment stands now, a company could potentially intentionally not follow through on issuing options, wait to respond to the employee close to the 12-month mark after the termination date, to avoid issuing options. If an amendment to Rule 701 only covers up to 12 months after the last date of employment, my situation, and thousands of others, would not be supported. Please consider these changes. I want to prevent this from happening to other people. We just want what was promised, nothing more, and a way for companies to correct their mistake.